a couple months ago me and durr were talking crap to each other, and he said he could beat a grandmaster at chess if the GM was playing down a knight. i said lolol so we booked 5k. fast forward a couple months, get a few drinks in me at pf changs, and hes SOOO confident, so we end up betting 50k with the GM down a rook.

fast forward a week later, i get curtains to play for me and give him a 10% freeroll. curtains is an international master, so hes pretty solid, and i dont really know any GMs so i went with the easy route cuz i didnt think it would matter much..

anyways, first 5k game where curtains is down a knight, curtains wins decidedly. we used a 45 minute clock on that one. i also booked 4.5 to 1 somewhere in the middle of the match where curtains had a dominating position for 2k more, so up 7k there. durr had random bets in between to other people, so maybe lost 9k total or something.

for the main event, we were supposed to play a single 50k match with curtains down a rook, but durr wanted to decrease variance or something stupid, so we went with a best of 3 match for 55k total. after seeing the first game, i realized durr didnt have much of a chance, and jcmoussa booked 700 at 3.5 to 1 or something silly with me as well.

anyways, first match just finished, with curtains winning fairly solidly again.. durr was in a few manageable positions, but managed to donk it off with some ill timed moves. so.. 1 more win to go. we ended up coinflipping for all of the details, as in which side the rook/knight would be taken away, and which color would be played. so far durr played white first game with curtains down queen side knight, and white for the first game of the main event with curtains down his king side rook. this next game has durr playing white with curtains down his queen side rook.

anyways, this is probably one of the bigger bets done on chess in history. most people realize what their edge is and wont gamble on it, as you know, its a skill game and all. but yea, im having a good month so far with one of my horsies winning a bracelet, and it looks like its about to get better. details to follow soon..

well a knight is worth what 3 points? yeah im sure the edge of a guy like curtains on an unskilled chess player is more like 6 points or maybe even more. pretty sick prop bet and great idea raptor. please more videos of jumping off houses.

Did Durr ever have a chance or did he just bet 60k drawing stone dead....

'i win 100% of the time in this bet' -curtains

I had a feeling.... That's some pretty sick [censored]. 0% chance of beating an IM down a rook. And he originally wanted to play a GM down a knight... What convinced him that this was in any way feasible?

Quote:Is durrrr actually any good at chess, or does he just like betting on stuff?

hes not a lot better than me, and i consider myself terrible.

you really have to be quite bad at chess to ever lose with a rook advantage against anyone. just play defensively and force a bunch of trades -- they don't all even have to be even -- and you'll be unstoppable in the endgame. this is why chess is a terrible game to handicap -- a single pawn advantage would be enough to make any competitive player a favorite against the top gm's in the world.

Quote:Is durrrr actually any good at chess, or does he just like betting on stuff?

hes not a lot better than me, and i consider myself terrible.

you really have to be quite bad at chess to ever lose with a rook advantage against anyone. just play defensively and force a bunch of trades -- they don't all even have to be even -- and you'll be unstoppable in the endgame. this is why chess is a terrible game to handicap -- a single pawn advantage would be enough to make any competitive player a favorite against the top gm's in the world.

Quote:Is durrrr actually any good at chess, or does he just like betting on stuff?

hes not a lot better than me, and i consider myself terrible.

you really have to be quite bad at chess to ever lose with a rook advantage against anyone. just play defensively and force a bunch of trades -- they don't all even have to be even -- and you'll be unstoppable in the endgame. this is why chess is a terrible game to handicap -- a single pawn advantage would be enough to make any competitive player a favorite against the top gm's in the world.

its really not as easy as you think.

i'm not saying anyone who has ever played the game should be able to win this, but any serious chess player -- even one that's not that good among serious chess players -- should. it's kind of like playing nlh with the button every hand.

Quote:Is durrrr actually any good at chess, or does he just like betting on stuff?

hes not a lot better than me, and i consider myself terrible.

you really have to be quite bad at chess to ever lose with a rook advantage against anyone. just play defensively and force a bunch of trades -- they don't all even have to be even -- and you'll be unstoppable in the endgame. this is why chess is a terrible game to handicap -- a single pawn advantage would be enough to make any competitive player a favorite against the top gm's in the world.

its really not as easy as you think.

i'm not saying anyone who has ever played the game should be able to win this, but any serious chess player -- even one that's not that good among serious chess players -- should. it's kind of like playing nlh with the button every hand.

Quote:Is durrrr actually any good at chess, or does he just like betting on stuff?

hes not a lot better than me, and i consider myself terrible.

you really have to be quite bad at chess to ever lose with a rook advantage against anyone. just play defensively and force a bunch of trades -- they don't all even have to be even -- and you'll be unstoppable in the endgame. this is why chess is a terrible game to handicap -- a single pawn advantage would be enough to make any competitive player a favorite against the top gm's in the world.

its really not as easy as you think.

i'm not saying anyone who has ever played the game should be able to win this, but any serious chess player -- even one that's not that good among serious chess players -- should. it's kind of like playing PLO with the button every hand.

Quote:Is durrrr actually any good at chess, or does he just like betting on stuff?

hes not a lot better than me, and i consider myself terrible.

you really have to be quite bad at chess to ever lose with a rook advantage against anyone. just play defensively and force a bunch of trades -- they don't all even have to be even -- and you'll be unstoppable in the endgame. this is why chess is a terrible game to handicap -- a single pawn advantage would be enough to make any competitive player a favorite against the top gm's in the world.

That's not true, a piece advantage would likely be enough for me against a GM if it's not a very fast time control. But a pawn never, i would be crushed. I am rated just above 2000 FIDE.

Quote:Also Curtains said he can reconstruct the entire match(es) from memory so maybe he would do that for everyone if there is interest (not sure if he would spend time on that or not).

Oh yeah that would be awesome. Plus it wouldn't be that tedious if he's used to typing out notation. A level players should be able to remember a game move for move.

Was durrr drinking/drugging during the match? I can't see him taking this bet without knowing he had a solid chance. In a non-blitz game, an IM giving rook odds to a competent player would be at a disadvantage, though the term 'competent' is relative and might have a different meaning in my head than another's.

Did Durr ever have a chance or did he just bet 60k drawing stone dead....

'i win 100% of the time in this bet' -curtains

I had a feeling.... That's some pretty sick [censored]. 0% chance of beating an IM down a rook. And he originally wanted to play a GM down a knight... What convinced him that this was in any way feasible?

See, chess is not without the aspect of bad players not knowing they're bad. If durrr never played a rated tournament or played extensively online to get a feel of where he is at, and just beat up on his buddies, he probably has little idea of how good or bad he is.

What were time controls, or was this the one that was 45 min per side?

The final game is being played right now, right? I was about to suggest some moves but that would be shady as hell if there are still games to be played.

No its over. Time control was 60 minutes per side, but he didn't actually lose on time if he went over, he simply had to pay $333 per every minute extra he used. He got down to a few minutes/seconds both games but never actually went over.

Quote:What would have been the right handicap for this to be an even match? Minus the Q? Minus a Rook and pawn?

Many times the pawn in front of the removed rook is starts pushed, in this case it would start at A6, so durrr had a slightly bigger advantage than normal rook odds.

A queen feels like way too much, cuz even if durrr is inexperienced he's naturally intelligent enough to figure things out. I'd say 2 minor pieces. Usually in games like this rook odds is actually better, because the better player has one less minor piece to use and immediately rush to seize the initiative.

What were time controls, or was this the one that was 45 min per side?

The final game is being played right now, right? I was about to suggest some moves but that would be shady as hell if there are still games to be played.

No its over. Time control was 60 minutes per side, but he didn't actually lose on time if he went over, he simply had to pay $333 per every minute extra he used. He got down to a few minutes/seconds both games but never actually went over.

Yeah, I just noticed that it was game 2 and didn't even see game 1 already posted.

Quote:Is durrrr actually any good at chess, or does he just like betting on stuff?

hes not a lot better than me, and i consider myself terrible.

you really have to be quite bad at chess to ever lose with a rook advantage against anyone. just play defensively and force a bunch of trades -- they don't all even have to be even -- and you'll be unstoppable in the endgame. this is why chess is a terrible game to handicap -- a single pawn advantage would be enough to make any competitive player a favorite against the top gm's in the world.

That's not true, a piece advantage would likely be enough for me against a GM if it's not a very fast time control. But a pawn never, i would be crushed. I am rated just above 2000 FIDE.

Well you know that what color you draw as well as what pawn is removed has a great impact. A piece is easily enough and pete_fabrazio is basically correct in his statements.

i don't know chess well enough to piece out a match from the notation there - did durrrr make any obvious blunders/hang a piece? down a rook he should be able to force his opponent into trades which give him an edge.

Quote:Is durrrr actually any good at chess, or does he just like betting on stuff?

hes not a lot better than me, and i consider myself terrible.

you really have to be quite bad at chess to ever lose with a rook advantage against anyone. just play defensively and force a bunch of trades -- they don't all even have to be even -- and you'll be unstoppable in the endgame. this is why chess is a terrible game to handicap -- a single pawn advantage would be enough to make any competitive player a favorite against the top gm's in the world.

its really not as easy as you think.

I'm not sure how I would do but I know what I would try.

Right off the hop I'd take every power piece i could that forced him to use his turn to take my piece back. You'd really want to trade queens.

Once you get the superior player down to say his bishop and rook vs your bishop and two rooks (if his mom is cool with it) you're in good shape.

Did Durr ever have a chance or did he just bet 60k drawing stone dead....

'i win 100% of the time in this bet' -curtains

I had a feeling.... That's some pretty sick [censored]. 0% chance of beating an IM down a rook. And he originally wanted to play a GM down a knight... What convinced him that this was in any way feasible?

He may have beat a computer that way. Much easier than beating any human GM with the same handicap even if Computer >>>>> Average GM.

Quote: this is why chess is a terrible game to handicap -- a single pawn advantage would be enough to make any competitive player a favorite against the top gm's in the world.

There was a charity match a few years ago when Terence Chapman, a former England junior international/British U-14 Champion and FIDE rating a bit less than 2200, played Kasparov at 2 pawn odds. The two pawns were never centre pawns as Kasparov was of the opinion that this would be too big a handicap. I remember at the time there was a surprisingly wide range of opinions even amongst strong players as to what odds players of various strengths could give to Kasparov. At any rate, Kasparov narrowly won the match. I can't even count the number of games where, as a mere FM I have won from what seemed like hopeless positions against decent players (and tbh vice-versa!).

I can't be bothered downloading a chess program to play through the moves, but I followed the first ten or so moves of game 1 in my head and durrr sucks pretty bad. I'm a decent chess player, by no means a strong player, but curtains would have little chance against me down a rook. A knight would probably be about level. Being a rook up is hugely strong as it's so easy to trade down into a position where the rook is a powerhouse and totally decisive.

Quote:Is durrrr actually any good at chess, or does he just like betting on stuff?

hes not a lot better than me, and i consider myself terrible.

you really have to be quite bad at chess to ever lose with a rook advantage against anyone. just play defensively and force a bunch of trades -- they don't all even have to be even -- and you'll be unstoppable in the endgame. this is why chess is a terrible game to handicap -- a single pawn advantage would be enough to make any competitive player a favorite against the top gm's in the world.

its really not as easy as you think.

I'm not sure how I would do but I know what I would try.

Right off the hop I'd take every power piece i could that forced him to use his turn to take my piece back. You'd really want to trade queens.

Once you get the superior player down to say his bishop and rook vs your bishop and two rooks (if his mom is cool with it) you're in good shape.

you will make a mistake somewhere along the way. look at it like this: the rooks dont even come into play in a chess game until X number of moves, by that point you are already going to have given up atleast half the value of the rook. now you need to finish without losing - nah, its going to be very hard.

Out of 100 random club players, I would probably beat only around 20, but I still quite sure I would beat Curtains if he would play without a rook (my brother is about that level and I would beat him), but I think that I would be a favourite against Durrrr with a rook less, with a knight less I would crush him. The big difference is really between club players and sunday players, the best sunday players that beat all their friends and relatives etc. usually get crushed when they join a club, you don't remove all your easily exploitable mistakes until you regularily play people that know how to exploit them.

cool betthe only way i think durr or anyone else in his position would have a chance is to make it blitz, and hope that the GM you're playing is a blitz fish (fish being relative to his normal time abilities) and you are a well above average speed chess player. or...... if durrr were to play with no piece advantage, but curtains had to play blind, in a G/45 scenario, that would be cool.

i'm somewhere around 1600 uscf last time i played and have taken down players 2000+ at G/30 and below, but above i'd get slowly, painfully demolished, G/45 is enough for curtains to do just that - and i think ppl who think getting a pawn, knight, or even rook's advantage against a GM is a cinch win are out of their minds

Quote:cool betthe only way i think durr or anyone else in his position would have a chance is to make it blitz, and hope that the GM you're playing is a blitz fish (fish being relative to his normal time abilities) and you are a well above average speed chess player. or...... if durrr were to play with no piece advantage, but curtains had to play blind, in a G/45 scenario, that would be cool.

Curtains would give up very little playing blind. But don't tell durrrr.

Strong players actually pwn harder at blitz - skill differences become magnified - they still see most of what they would see anyway, and the weak player doesn't see much of anything. But don't tell durrrr.

Totally off topic but has anyone heard about a chess game between A known poker player that i think was Ram Vaswani and a well known Grand Master. The rumor i heard was they bet 100,000 and ram got 10-1. The rest of the rumor was that ram used an ear piece linked to a computer that had not lost ever in simulation. Obviously ram whips the GM and questions about how its possible for a poker player to beat a GM. Well i heard they caught known poker player with the ear piece and found out what happened. Pretty crazy if true. Any real info on if this actually occured and the actual players involved would be great! Again i have no actual knowledge if this is true just a rumor i heard

Quote:Totally off topic but has anyone heard about a chess game between A known poker player that i think was Ram Vaswani and a well known Grand Master. The rumor i heard was they bet 100,000 and ram got 10-1. The rest of the rumor was that ram used an ear piece linked to a computer that had not lost ever in simulation. Obviously ram whips the GM and questions about how its possible for a poker player to beat a GM. Well i heard they caught known poker player with the ear piece and found out what happened. Pretty crazy if true. Any real info on if this actually occured and the actual players involved would be great! Again i have no actual knowledge if this is true just a rumor i heard

Quote:Totally off topic but has anyone heard about a chess game between A known poker player that i think was Ram Vaswani and a well known Grand Master. The rumor i heard was they bet 100,000 and ram got 10-1. The rest of the rumor was that ram used an ear piece linked to a computer that had not lost ever in simulation. Obviously ram whips the GM and questions about how its possible for a poker player to beat a GM. Well i heard they caught known poker player with the ear piece and found out what happened. Pretty crazy if true. Any real info on if this actually occured and the actual players involved would be great! Again i have no actual knowledge if this is true just a rumor i heard

Well he had to get the moves to the computer somehow, I heard it was by having a chessboard grid on the inside of the roof of his mouth, and there were sensors for each square, and he had his tongue sharpened, and each tooth represented a different chess piece. Sick, if true.

Quote:the only way i think durr or anyone else in his position would have a chance is to make it blitz, and hope that the GM you're playing is a blitz fish

This is completely backwards. You're up a rook. The major way a typical club player would lose in that situation is to blunder. Playing blitz massively increases the chances of you blundering. I'd want it to be a correspondence game, if possible.

I think people are overestimating how difficult it is to win up a rook. Grandmasters are not magical. They can't change the fact of what is on the board. I would be a favourite against Garry Kasparov if he played down a rook. The basic gameplan is trade off as many pieces as possible, open some files so the rook is useful, and keep the king safe.

Contrast that with what durrr did (I've taken a look at the games now). In game 1 he failed to develop, instead playing the crazy Qa5 and stuffing his queen down on a3 in some attempted pawn-grab, when he's already a rook up. He allowed his king to be trapped in the center and broadly speaking that's why he lost. In game 2 he actually twice runs away from piece trades, retreating his bishop to e6 and then d7 when a trade with the knight is possible. The losing move in this game was d4 in response to curtains' e4. It not only closed up the center, reducing the power of his extra rook, but it locked all his pieces away from the K-side, where curtains is about to attack. Look at the board after ... c5 and notice how utterly locked out of the K-side durrr's queen is. It's going to take him like 4 moves to get her there if he needs to.

Quote:Totally off topic but has anyone heard about a chess game between A known poker player that i think was Ram Vaswani and a well known Grand Master. The rumor i heard was they bet 100,000 and ram got 10-1. The rest of the rumor was that ram used an ear piece linked to a computer that had not lost ever in simulation. Obviously ram whips the GM and questions about how its possible for a poker player to beat a GM. Well i heard they caught known poker player with the ear piece and found out what happened. Pretty crazy if true. Any real info on if this actually occured and the actual players involved would be great! Again i have no actual knowledge if this is true just a rumor i heard

Quote:Totally off topic but has anyone heard about a chess game between A known poker player that i think was Ram Vaswani and a well known Grand Master. The rumor i heard was they bet 100,000 and ram got 10-1. The rest of the rumor was that ram used an ear piece linked to a computer that had not lost ever in simulation. Obviously ram whips the GM and questions about how its possible for a poker player to beat a GM. Well i heard they caught known poker player with the ear piece and found out what happened. Pretty crazy if true. Any real info on if this actually occured and the actual players involved would be great! Again i have no actual knowledge if this is true just a rumor i heard

Quote: you really have to be quite bad at chess to ever lose with a rook advantage against anyone. just play defensively and force a bunch of trades -- they don't all even have to be even -- and you'll be unstoppable in the endgame. this is why chess is a terrible game to handicap -- a single pawn advantage would be enough to make any competitive player a favorite against the top gm's in the world.

A single pawn advantage would make a "competitive" player a fav over top gm's? LOL, that's the most ridiculus statement in this thread, first of all what do you call competitive player? 2000 ICC?

Quote:the only way i think durr or anyone else in his position would have a chance is to make it blitz, and hope that the GM you're playing is a blitz fish

This is completely backwards. You're up a rook. The major way a typical club player would lose in that situation is to blunder. Playing blitz massively increases the chances of you blundering. I'd want it to be a correspondence game, if possible.

I think people are overestimating how difficult it is to win up a rook. Grandmasters are not magical. They can't change the fact of what is on the board. I would be a favourite against Garry Kasparov if he played down a rook. The basic gameplan is trade off as many pieces as possible, open some files so the rook is useful, and keep the king safe.

Contrast that with what durrr did (I've taken a look at the games now). In game 1 he failed to develop, instead playing the crazy Qa5 and stuffing his queen down on a3 in some attempted pawn-grab, when he's already a rook up. He allowed his king to be trapped in the center and broadly speaking that's why he lost. In game 2 he actually twice runs away from piece trades, retreating his bishop to e6 and then d7 when a trade with the knight is possible. The losing move in this game was d4 in response to curtains' e4. It not only closed up the center, reducing the power of his extra rook, but it locked all his pieces away from the K-side, where curtains is about to attack. Look at the board after ... c5 and notice how utterly locked out of the K-side durrr's queen is. It's going to take him like 4 moves to get her there if he needs to.

Plenty of Masters/GM have gone to Central Park and got owned playing speed chess. If youre reasonably good at speed chess ,this would def be the way to go IMO. Much easier to trade down in Blitz. And I certainly dont want to play a master in a game where he has time to think more than a handful of moves ahead.

And you would def not be a fav over Kasparov down a rook. Hes going to mate you long before that rook comes in to play.

Reading through these posts, it's amazing to me how peoplecan be so unappreciative of experts who have worked foryears to develop their skills. If you've heard of JohnnyMorton, the NFL wide receiver, who tried to fight in theUFL after training in martial arts for 2 months... Hegot knocked out in under 2 minutes.

Imagine if the prop bet was basketball; a chess grandmasteris the chess equivalent of an NBA player ( or maybe evenall-star ) at the worst. The average "good" chess player,( ie less than 1700 rating ) would be analogous to a weekend gym rat who loves basketball.

Would anyone in their right mind bet on the gym rat nomatter HOW good the odds ? ( 10 point handicap to 20,NBA player can only shoot from 3 point land... etc... )

Probably not... unless the NBA player had to play inshowshoes, or blind-folded, or something utterlyridiculous...

Or imagine the gym rat vs. an NFL player, one-on-one,a la those old American Gladiator events. How oftendid the average Joe beat the Gladiator ???

My point is: non-experts tend to completely trivializethe skills of experts in their field to their owndetriment; especially in games of skill or athleticendeavors.

Quote:Reading through these posts, it's amazing to me how peoplecan be so unappreciative of experts who have worked foryears to develop their skills. If you've heard of JohnnyMorton, the NFL wide receiver, who tried to fight in theUFL after training in martial arts for 2 months... Hegot knocked out in under 2 minutes.

Imagine if the prop bet was basketball; a chess grandmasteris the chess equivalent of an NBA player ( or maybe evenall-star ) at the worst. The average "good" chess player,( ie less than 1700 rating ) would be analogous to a weekend gym rat who loves basketball.

Would anyone in their right mind bet on the gym rat nomatter HOW good the odds ? ( 10 point handicap to 20,NBA player can only shoot from 3 point land... etc... )

Probably not... unless the NBA player had to play inshowshoes, or blind-folded, or something utterlyridiculous...

Or imagine the gym rat vs. an NFL player, one-on-one,a la those old American Gladiator events. How oftendid the average Joe beat the Gladiator ???

My point is: non-experts tend to completely trivializethe skills of experts in their field to their owndetriment; especially in games of skill or athleticendeavors.

I think that you are missing the point a little. I have played chess while drunk before and beaten a (sober) near GM with a queen handicap. I am sure that I could train myself to win in this situation (with a rook handicap) in less than a week. There is a rating cutoff point in which all players with ratings > X can beat a GM of Curtains' level with > 90% probability. X is almost certainly a lot lower than you think.

A small perturbation in 'game fairness' can only be measured in the context of the game.

For example: I play Garry Kasparov right now with a handicap of bishop, knight, rook on one side of the board: I crush him.

I play Tiger Woods with 4 clubs in his bag that he gets to choose: he absolutely crushes me and I am about a 12 handicap.

I play TLK in HU LHE and only get top 33% hands: I should be a winner.

I play PA in HU LO8 and only get top 33% hands: I probably am a loser.

edit: oops didn't see it was done. And I'm pretty sure I could beat an IM down a knight. Definitely if he's down a rook. And I'm not very good.

If you're truly "not very good", how can you have any idea what it takes to beat somebody who is very, very good, and therefore how would you know what handicap is fair? Or did you not bother reading the rest of the thread, and notice that durrrr lost a bit of money because he thought the same thing?

Nothing could be further from the truth. Go to Washington Square Park or any warm moist spot where deviant chess players congregate and you'll find folks gambling on chess. (Yes you did say normal people but with that bar who gambles?)It's small stakes compared to a poker player's prop bets but just the same chess players gamble. Asa Hoffman use to offer weak class players time odds and mating square. The "fish" could pick the square before the games started, like d4 (middle of the board) and Asa would have to "mate" the on d4 or else he's lose the bet. Iíve watched IM Skirazi play GM Dzindzichashvili, in speed chess losing like $5,000 in about 20 minutes of play.I guess the major difference in chess gambling is if you can put your ego aside you should be smart enough to know the outcome before the bet starts.

Some facts:I've played countless blitz-games (5 minutes) vs guys who played 1 year, giving a queen or both rooks. Always winning them. Main reason: the time-pressure. So don't think a knight or rook is an awful lot. Sometimes it is, but most players are so weak (compared to an IM) that it hardly matters.

The average club-player will have the worse of it with knight-odds as the IM has great chances for a draw when things go wrong.I guess players around 2200 FIDE easily beat the IM with knight-odds (it's the level that make IMs sweat in regular games).But any unschooled player has no chance whatsoever with knight-odds. Whether it's vs 2200 or 2400 also doesn't matter, as long as his opponent is flexible enough to realize he shouldn't play the theoretically best moves but those who offer the best chances.

Btw: curtains would have beaten him blindfold too, seriously. His level would hardly drop.

Quote:I used to be a strong club level player (1700ish USCF).. I put my chess program on highest GM setting and down a knight. With 5 or 10 minute time I only eked out a few draws and lost most of them.

I believe you'd need to be ~2000 USCF to be +EV playing a GM at knight odds. A 2200 USCF player should be winning most games.

this is why chess is a terrible game to handicap -- a single pawn advantage would be enough to make any competitive player a favorite against the top gm's in the world.

This is so wrong, a random GM with pawn and move would be the underdog against a world champion at the top of his game. IM Boinn lost to Kasparov in a simul, while not pawn and move, one would think that facing 39 other players at the same time would be an equalizer.... not...

edit: oops didn't see it was done. And I'm pretty sure I could beat an IM down a knight. Definitely if he's down a rook. And I'm not very good.

If you're truly "not very good", how can you have any idea what it takes to beat somebody who is very, very good, and therefore how would you know what handicap is fair? Or did you not bother reading the rest of the thread, and notice that durrrr lost a bit of money because he thought the same thing?

I am a huge fav. against Durrr. I am extremely good at chess compared to the average nonstudying player and better than a lot of players who have been playing and studying for a while. Still nowhere near someone like Curtains though.

if he was a better prop better he could have likely gotten himself a 2 hour clock and Curtains a 5 min clock.

I don't think it would help that much. Curtains can think while he's not on move. That helps a ton, if he was a GREAT prop better he's take a 2 hour clock but make Curtains stand behind a "CURTAIN" (hahaha..) when not on move...But actually that would not help tons either, he's still be able to review the game blindfolded...

edit: oops didn't see it was done. And I'm pretty sure I could beat an IM down a knight. Definitely if he's down a rook. And I'm not very good.

If you're truly "not very good", how can you have any idea what it takes to beat somebody who is very, very good, and therefore how would you know what handicap is fair? Or did you not bother reading the rest of the thread, and notice that durrrr lost a bit of money because he thought the same thing?

I am a huge fav. against Durrr. I am extremely good at chess compared to the average nonstudying player and better than a lot of players who have been playing and studying for a while. Still nowhere near someone like Curtains though.

In other words, you ARE very good. But not an expert. Whatever, I guess.

if he was a better prop better he could have likely gotten himself a 2 hour clock and Curtains a 5 min clock.

I don't think it would help that much. Curtains can think while he's not on move. That helps a ton, if he was a GREAT prop better he's take a 2 hour clock but make Curtains stand behind a "CURTAIN" (hahaha..) when not on move...But actually that would not help tons either, he's still be able to review the game blindfolded...

How about this... blindfolded, and he isn't told durrr's move unless it involves a capture.

Quote:"I play PA in HU LO8 and only get top 33% hands: I probably am a loser."

ok, ive never played this game and will take this bet any day.

I am just trying to illustrate the point that structural issues within a game (e.g., hands running much closer together as they do in LO8 compared to LHE) influence how big a seemingly small handicap actually is.

Quote:the only way i think durr or anyone else in his position would have a chance is to make it blitz, and hope that the GM you're playing is a blitz fish

This is completely backwards. You're up a rook. The major way a typical club player would lose in that situation is to blunder. Playing blitz massively increases the chances of you blundering. I'd want it to be a correspondence game, if possible.

I think people are overestimating how difficult it is to win up a rook. Grandmasters are not magical. They can't change the fact of what is on the board. I would be a favourite against Garry Kasparov if he played down a rook. The basic gameplan is trade off as many pieces as possible, open some files so the rook is useful, and keep the king safe.

Contrast that with what durrr did (I've taken a look at the games now). In game 1 he failed to develop, instead playing the crazy Qa5 and stuffing his queen down on a3 in some attempted pawn-grab, when he's already a rook up. He allowed his king to be trapped in the center and broadly speaking that's why he lost. In game 2 he actually twice runs away from piece trades, retreating his bishop to e6 and then d7 when a trade with the knight is possible. The losing move in this game was d4 in response to curtains' e4. It not only closed up the center, reducing the power of his extra rook, but it locked all his pieces away from the K-side, where curtains is about to attack. Look at the board after ... c5 and notice how utterly locked out of the K-side durrr's queen is. It's going to take him like 4 moves to get her there if he needs to.

Uhhh.... I was black in game 2.

Also its clearly true that speed chess would give me more of an edge than game 60.

Also any expert rated player should be a favorite over the World Champion at rook odds IMO.

Quote:the only way i think durr or anyone else in his position would have a chance is to make it blitz, and hope that the GM you're playing is a blitz fish

This is completely backwards. You're up a rook. The major way a typical club player would lose in that situation is to blunder. Playing blitz massively increases the chances of you blundering. I'd want it to be a correspondence game, if possible.

I think people are overestimating how difficult it is to win up a rook. Grandmasters are not magical. They can't change the fact of what is on the board. I would be a favourite against Garry Kasparov if he played down a rook. The basic gameplan is trade off as many pieces as possible, open some files so the rook is useful, and keep the king safe.

Contrast that with what durrr did (I've taken a look at the games now). In game 1 he failed to develop, instead playing the crazy Qa5 and stuffing his queen down on a3 in some attempted pawn-grab, when he's already a rook up. He allowed his king to be trapped in the center and broadly speaking that's why he lost. In game 2 he actually twice runs away from piece trades, retreating his bishop to e6 and then d7 when a trade with the knight is possible. The losing move in this game was d4 in response to curtains' e4. It not only closed up the center, reducing the power of his extra rook, but it locked all his pieces away from the K-side, where curtains is about to attack. Look at the board after ... c5 and notice how utterly locked out of the K-side durrr's queen is. It's going to take him like 4 moves to get her there if he needs to.

Plenty of Masters/GM have gone to Central Park and got owned playing speed chess. If youre reasonably good at speed chess ,this would def be the way to go IMO. Much easier to trade down in Blitz. And I certainly dont want to play a master in a game where he has time to think more than a handful of moves ahead.

And you would def not be a fav over Kasparov down a rook. Hes going to mate you long before that rook comes in to play.

lol, GM's don't go to Central Park and get owned at blitz by random people. There is maybe one person who is a favorite over a random GM, but he is known to be GM strength himself in blitz chess (Yaacov is his name and he's only been around a few years). Everyone else who plays on the street or in the parks in NY, for the last 10 years, is not especially strong. Maybe master to 2400 strength at blitz but I would always have a huge edge over them.

wow, some of the estimations of how big or small a knight or rook odds are are totally absurd. i don't have a great estimation of what it is, though curtains likely does. however it's obviously a scale that changes. while skills and ratings clump near the top, (even due to just the plain rating adjustment formula being different for higher ratings than low) the same is obviously not true for lower and mid ratings.

my impulse is that no adequately strong (probably any random 2200+ish but maybe any random IM+ is what's necessary. but hey, i'd personally doubt that an expert (2000+) would lose to a champion given a knight) player would ever lose to the world champion if given a knight, and probably 2 pawns would be enough as well.

however the difference between a 1400 and a 2000 is just absurd, and considering we're probably looking at durrr being like an 1100-1200(?), and curtains being a 2400+ (uscf), well, it's just a ridiculous difference.

Quote:I'm about 2100 (much weaker than IM) and from the looks of those games I would have easily won with the same handicap vs. durr. What a great bet lol.

As far as various handicaps, a GM would beat almost any basic master with pawn odds, much more so a weaker player.

A decent club strength player should be able to win with rook odds most of the time, and piece odds would be close.

Somehow the games felt tougher than they may have seemed. durrr never flat out gave away material in one move and seemed to be working very hard. A lot of his moves lacked any chess understanding but I did feel like I had to calculate some stuff a few times and that if I made a careless mistake he was capable of picking up on it. I mean the first game was actually pretty competitive until he played ....Kf7 on like move 25-30. Despite that ok I'd probably win starting with 2 minutes on my clock, but it'd be a lot closer.

Quote:wow, some of the estimations of how big or small a knight or rook odds are are totally absurd. i don't have a great estimation of what it is, though curtains likely does. however it's obviously a scale that changes. while skills and ratings clump near the top, (even due to just the plain rating adjustment formula being different for higher ratings than low) the same is obviously not true for lower and mid ratings.

my impulse is that no adequately strong (probably any random 2200+ish but maybe any random IM+ is what's necessary. but hey, i'd personally doubt that an expert (2000+) would lose to a champion given a knight) player would ever lose to the world champion if given a knight, and probably 2 pawns would be enough as well.

however the difference between a 1400 and a 2000 is just absurd, and considering we're probably looking at durrr being like an 1100-1200(?), and curtains being a 2400+ (uscf), well, it's just a ridiculous difference.

durrr isn't 1100-1200. I am very sensitive to people overrating others because I have had a lot of students in my old schools who actually were 1100-1200. At the moment durrrr is probably in the 900-1050 range. He has an edge because he was relatively smart, in that he was taking the game very seriously and being very careful before every move he made. A weakness of most 900-1100 players is that they move too quickly and it causes them to make huge blunders.

Many times durrrr had made a blunder and was about to move but always saw it (We had a rule that he could make the move on the board but he was still open to make any other move until he actually hit his clock).

The problem is that he has simply no chess experience and knowledge, so he would make too many moves that had nothing to do with what a normal seasoned chessplayer would make. For instance b3 in the 2nd game has absolutely zero to do with the position. He was good at not simply putting pieces where I can take them, but unfortunately that wasn't enough.

why are both you and your sister currently on massive (~100 pt) rating downswings?

I dunno haven't played in years. Right before I stopped playing I was like 2500 and played a few filler games in a tournament I run. A filler game is when you aren't even playing in the event and you play against someone who is, probably not the ideal conditions to play chess. Anyway I managed to lose all 3 times to lower rated opponents, dropping my rating like 40-50 points almost.

curtains i always thought a real fun idea would be something like this on ICC:

Give GM's something like 20:1 odds against one of the toughest comps on there at a blitz game. I like watching top players get destroyed by the comp, would be even more fun if there was money involved. Too bad you can't bet money on ICC.

Quote: my impulse is that no adequately strong (probably any random 2200+ish but maybe any random IM+ is what's necessary. but hey, i'd personally doubt that an expert (2000+) would lose to a champion given a knight) player would ever lose to the world champion if given a knight, and probably 2 pawns would be enough as well.

As I mentioned above, this has already been tested (with a measly 4 game sample size ;-)) in the Kasparov-Chapman charity match a few years back. Chapman was a bit under 2200 and had two pawn odds in each game. Kasparov won 2.5-1.5.

Quote:Totally off topic but has anyone heard about a chess game between A known poker player that i think was Ram Vaswani and a well known Grand Master. The rumor i heard was they bet 100,000 and ram got 10-1. The rest of the rumor was that ram used an ear piece linked to a computer that had not lost ever in simulation. Obviously ram whips the GM and questions about how its possible for a poker player to beat a GM. Well i heard they caught known poker player with the ear piece and found out what happened. Pretty crazy if true. Any real info on if this actually occured and the actual players involved would be great! Again i have no actual knowledge if this is true just a rumor i heard

Quote:Totally off topic but has anyone heard about a chess game between A known poker player that i think was Ram Vaswani and a well known Grand Master. The rumor i heard was they bet 100,000 and ram got 10-1. The rest of the rumor was that ram used an ear piece linked to a computer that had not lost ever in simulation. Obviously ram whips the GM and questions about how its possible for a poker player to beat a GM. Well i heard they caught known poker player with the ear piece and found out what happened. Pretty crazy if true. Any real info on if this actually occured and the actual players involved would be great! Again i have no actual knowledge if this is true just a rumor i heard

Quote:Reading through these posts, it's amazing to me how peoplecan be so unappreciative of experts who have worked foryears to develop their skills. If you've heard of JohnnyMorton, the NFL wide receiver, who tried to fight in theUFL after training in martial arts for 2 months... Hegot knocked out in under 2 minutes.

Imagine if the prop bet was basketball; a chess grandmasteris the chess equivalent of an NBA player ( or maybe evenall-star ) at the worst. The average "good" chess player,( ie less than 1700 rating ) would be analogous to a weekend gym rat who loves basketball.

Would anyone in their right mind bet on the gym rat nomatter HOW good the odds ? ( 10 point handicap to 20,NBA player can only shoot from 3 point land... etc... )

Probably not... unless the NBA player had to play inshowshoes, or blind-folded, or something utterlyridiculous...

Or imagine the gym rat vs. an NFL player, one-on-one,a la those old American Gladiator events. How oftendid the average Joe beat the Gladiator ???

My point is: non-experts tend to completely trivializethe skills of experts in their field to their owndetriment; especially in games of skill or athleticendeavors.

Sorry breaux but this is the worst analogy ever. It's not the NBA player playing with a point handicap, it's him playing without an arm.

Quote:Reading through these posts, it's amazing to me how peoplecan be so unappreciative of experts who have worked foryears to develop their skills. ...

Sorry breaux but this is the worst analogy ever. It's not the NBA player playing with a point handicap, it's him playing without an arm.

The point isn't the mechanics of the analogy, it's the contention that average people underestimate the ability of experts, which I agree with.

Most weekend players (in any sport/competition) simply don't realize how much they don't know and see professionals as better versions of themselves, e.g. weekend basketball player sees NBA pros as stronger/faster/more accurate versions of themselves when in reality, there's probably another complete level the pros are operating on that the amateur doesn't even see.

Quote:Reading through these posts, it's amazing to me how peoplecan be so unappreciative of experts who have worked foryears to develop their skills. ...

Sorry breaux but this is the worst analogy ever. It's not the NBA player playing with a point handicap, it's him playing without an arm.

The point isn't the mechanics of the analogy, it's the contention that average people underestimate the ability of experts, which I agree with.

Most weekend players (in any sport/competition) simply don't realize how much they don't know and see professionals as better versions of themselves, e.g. weekend basketball player sees NBA pros as stronger/faster/more accurate versions of themselves when in reality, there's probably another complete level the pros are operating on that the amateur doesn't even see.

Aye, but the discussion isn't about a weekend player. It seems that everybody, save for durrr, knew and knows the weekend player had no chance. The comment I quoted stemmed from the talk about seriously competitive players beating top players in certain conditions.

Plus, I still gotta say comparing not having a rook to spotting somebody points in 1 on 1 shows such a fundamental misunderstanding of chess and probably basketball as well.

Quote:Plus, I still gotta say comparing not having a rook to spotting somebody points in 1 on 1 shows such a fundamental misunderstanding of chess and probably basketball as well.

Yeah, people are really drawing the wrong conclusions from Durr's loss.

If you follow the games, then it is obvious that Durr has no idea how to play chess. A competent player should be able to at least draw an IM if they start up a rook.

Again, look at the first five moves of game 1:

1.d4 d52.c4 Bf53.Nc3 c64.Bf4 e65.c5 Qa5!!!

Qa5!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The people who think this match shows that an IM can beat a lesser player if he is "only" spotting a rook clearly don't understand how badly Durr played.

He doesn't know how to play chess. When you realize this, his loss is not at all surprising.

Here's a better analogy. Let's say you set up a handicapped boxing match. One participant is a professional featherweight (126 lbs at weigh in) prizefighter, who has to wear 10 oz gloves. His opponent is a relatively untrained 210 pound man who can wear 3 oz. MMA gloves.

Well if the 210 pound man is short, obese, and old, then the lightweight will definitely win within one round. If the 210 pound man is an NFL wide receiver (to take a previous example), then the outcome will be very different.

Giving up a rook is a very big handicap, and it was only a good bet on Raptor's part because Durr is so awful at chess.

This thread has been very instrucive in itself, and I can see quite a few of you are very accomplished players.

Can someone recommend to me some good software that will not only help me learn but allow me to rate myself with accuracy and to play against a strong engine in a variety of formats (like setting it up to be down a rook, for example)?

What about the best place to play online (name of site) with other players?

Sorry everybody, I am just getting into chess and don't know where to turn to get better, as there are no instructors in my rural area. I will be moving to Las Vegas in a few months and will there join a club, but why wait to pursue an activity I enjoy? Thanks everybody for suggestions...

Btw I've been playing semi-seriously for 2 mo. and can beat "Chess Titans" (sometimes) on level 7 on Vista. When I started I couldn't beat it on 2. I really want to get better.

Thanks guys. I just "wasted" an hour with this thread. I only wish I could get an IM to play me a rook down for some serious cash. Durr is, as Curtain says, about a 950 USCF player. Only he didn't know that!

My estimate of how good a player has to be to have a +EV against an IM a rook up is around 1300. Against a GM maybe 1500.

Thanks guys. I just "wasted" an hour with this thread. I only wish I could get an IM to play me a rook down for some serious cash. Durr is, as Curtain says, about a 950 USCF player. Only he didn't know that!

My estimate of how good a player has to be to have a +EV against an IM a rook up is around 1300. Against a GM maybe 1500.

The difference between a normal IM and a GM in this bet is almost zero when facing low rated players. This should be extremely obvious and if you don't realize this you shouldn't be so cocky about how easily you'd win.

btw just a note, I am positive that a decent % of the people that say that they would win the bet easily and then mock durrr for losing, would not actually be a favorite in the bet. Some of you are, but I'd be almost certain that most of you aren't. Almost every chessplayer whom has never played in a tournament drastically overrates their ability. If you have never played in a tournament and think that you are about 1600, you are probably about 1200-1300. Basically just subtract 300-400 points from how good you are, and that's how good you actually are.

I know this through tremendous exposure to players who have never played rated games, yet seem to think they know how good they are.

Sorry to be mean, I just find it silly how so many people are talking about how easily they would win the bet, without once giving their actual rating or any credentials of any sort. I'm mainly saying this to defend durrrr.

Quote:btw just a note, I am positive that a decent % of the people that say that they would win the bet easily and then mock durrr for losing, would not actually be a favorite in the bet. Some of you are, but I'd be almost certain that most of you aren't. Almost every chessplayer whom has never played in a tournament drastically overrates their ability. If you have never played in a tournament and think that you are about 1600, you are probably about 1200-1300. Basically just subtract 300-400 points from how good you are, and that's how good you actually are.

I know this through tremendous exposure to players who have never played rated games, yet seem to think they know how good they are.

Sorry to be mean, I just find it silly how so many people are talking about how easily they would win the bet, without once giving their actual rating or any credentials of any sort. I'm mainly saying this to defend durrrr.

Curtains, you know nothing about chess. I would crush you if we made this bet. I play in the park by my house all the time and basically never lose.

Quote:btw just a note, I am positive that a decent % of the people that say that they would win the bet easily and then mock durrr for losing, would not actually be a favorite in the bet. Some of you are, but I'd be almost certain that most of you aren't. Almost every chessplayer whom has never played in a tournament drastically overrates their ability. If you have never played in a tournament and think that you are about 1600, you are probably about 1200-1300. Basically just subtract 300-400 points from how good you are, and that's how good you actually are.

I know this through tremendous exposure to players who have never played rated games, yet seem to think they know how good they are.

Sorry to be mean, I just find it silly how so many people are talking about how easily they would win the bet, without once giving their actual rating or any credentials of any sort. I'm mainly saying this to defend durrrr.

Curtains, you know nothing about chess. I would crush you if we made this bet. I play in the park by my house all the time and basically never lose.

Quote:"btw just a note, I am positive that a decent % of the people that say that they would win the bet easily and then mock durrr for losing, would not actually be a favorite in the bet."

i will make a bet.

My statement is not intended to be a green light for everyone who thinks they personally are the exception to this rule to comment on it.

btw if we are playing speed chess (3-5 minutes per side) I will almost certainly be a huge favorite against anyone here that has never played in a USCF rated tournament, or will play any USCF rated player under 1600.

If durr wants more action, I suspect I can find someone to back me to play against him in the same bet amount ($50K) and terms (rook down, G/60, best of 3 match) against him when I get to Vegas for the main event. My rating is about 2150.

Quote:sn=hazard1414 on yahoo chess, i'm at 'intermediate --> adequate' if anyone wants to play some blitz. holla

Play on www.chessbase.com, the software is a million times better and it's well known everyone uses a comp on Yahoo.

Interesting thread. I play loads of new people all the time and they usually have a story about how they are the best amongst there group of friends. I tell them I'm awful Which is true (rated around 1900 Auschess), but relative to them most games aren't difficult. Funny how easy it is to consider yourself a good player when you haven't actually played some of club level or above.

Out of interest, how long do you think it would take someone of high intelligence to beat a GM or similar rated player with Rook odds? I'd hazard a guess and say 2 - 4 weeks of 12 hours daily study should be more than enough, maybe even one week if there a fast learner with a good teacher.

Quote:sn=hazard1414 on yahoo chess, i'm at 'intermediate --> adequate' if anyone wants to play some blitz. holla

Play on www.chessbase.com, the software is a million times better and it's well known everyone uses a comp on Yahoo.

Interesting thread. I play loads of new people all the time and they usually have a story about how they are the best amongst there group of friends. I tell them I'm awful Which is true (rated around 1900 Auschess), but relative to them most games aren't difficult. Funny how easy it is to consider yourself a good player when you haven't actually played some of club level or above.

Out of interest, how long do you think it would take someone of high intelligence to beat a GM or similar rated player with Rook odds? I'd hazard a guess and say 2 - 4 weeks of 12 hours daily study should be more than enough, maybe even one week if there a fast learner with a good teacher.

2-4 weeks of daily study shouldn't be close to enough on average, not even remotely in the ballpark, assuming you are talking about a rank beginner.

Apparently you aren't aware that in the chess world, curtains is too much of a "chess bitch" (free plug!) to play the kings gambit. He always played d4 openings in the games I saw, unlike his early years playing the dragon.

Apparently you aren't aware that in the chess world, curtains is too much of a "chess bitch" (free plug!) to play the kings gambit. He always played d4 openings in the games I saw, unlike his early years playing the dragon.

Basically never played 1.d4. Most of my career I played 1.e4, and maybe 20-30% of 1.c4. Now that I don't study openings anymore I just play 1.c4 and hope for the best.

2-4 weeks of daily study shouldn't be close to enough on average, not even remotely in the ballpark, assuming you are talking about a rank beginner.

What do you think would be a better estimate?

I dunno, some people simply have no talent and will have major trouble with even a lot of training. I mean there are lots of kids who study for years and never get above 1300-1500. The same is true of many adults. Of course most adults just assume it won't be the case with them. Also it takes a lot of practice playing, I think it takes more time. Like 2-3 hours of study per day over a longer period of time would be more beneficial.

Quote:anyone think that durrrr deliberately took this bet as a huge underdog to set up a later huge bet as a moderate to big favorite?

or is it entirely durrr is just a propbetting fish with way too much money?

curtains how many hourse of dedicated chess training to you estimate it would take for durrr to be 50/50 in the match?

no idea, but probably at least a year of playing chess on a very serious level, and maybe signifigantly longer. Its almost impossible because he would have to stop playing poker as much as he does, and theres really no reason for him to do that?

Curtains, I've known a lot of chess players, and one thing I've learned is that some of them have no idea how good a grandmaster is. They haven't a clue about the kind of work that goes into playing at that level.

Apparently that is exactly the nerve I hit. You don't know me from Adam, but you would be very unwise to spot me a rook.

Quote:Curtains, I've known a lot of chess players, and one thing I've learned is that some of them have no idea how good a grandmaster is. They haven't a clue about the kind of work that goes into playing at that level.

Apparently that is exactly the nerve I hit. You don't know me from Adam, but you would be very unwise to spot me a rook.

ok but if you were the one who said there would be a differnece between whether you were playing a GM or IM in this bet, then you don't understand really. Honestly the difference between me and a GM in this bet is neglible and I actually think I'll do better than a lot of GM's because it becomes less about chess and more about psychology and predicting how a bad player will play. Given that I play poker and thus have a strong practical feel I feel confident that my results would equal those of maybe 30-50% of GMs in this type of bet. Since your opponents need to make mistakes for you to win, it comes down often to predicting what kind of mistakes your opponents are likely to make. At least I think this is true.

Also the things that GM's understand that I don't understand are hardly going to be applicable in a game against such weak opposition. Hence I have reason to doubt someone's chess understanding if they think that a GM will beat a 1500 in this bet but an IM will only beat a 1300. Its probably only going to be a 50 point difference on average with this specific type of wager.

Quote:Curtains, I've known a lot of chess players, and one thing I've learned is that some of them have no idea how good a grandmaster is. They haven't a clue about the kind of work that goes into playing at that level.

Apparently that is exactly the nerve I hit. You don't know me from Adam, but you would be very unwise to spot me a rook.

ok but if you were the one who said there would be a differnece between whether you were playing a GM or IM in this bet, then you don't understand really. Honestly the difference between me and a GM in this bet is neglible and I actually think I'll do better than a lot of GM's because it becomes less about chess and more about psychology and predicting how a bad player will play.

I agree about the psychology, and the point I was going to make is that it is the "extras" of hard work, maniacal devotion, and starting young that make the major difference between IMs and GMs. But there is also a psychological level, and the great GM are also masters at that level, whereas a lot of IMs are just gifted chess players who started playing young and encountered a lot of distractions and never really had the passion or drive (or stupidity!)to become GMs.

Consequently, I think that a GM would find some way to win a rook down significantly more often against a weaker player than an IM would.

But you're right, now that I think about it. Against Durrr as a, I guess, 950 player, it wouldn't make much difference.

Could Durrr (or a similar player) be hustling you? Playing over the two games (by the way, was ...Qxg7 in game one the best move?) it seems clear that you would win even more easily if there were another match. Some posters think Durrr would learn what he needs to do to win, but I suspect for a long time things will just get worse for him since the teacher always learns more about the student than the student learns about the teacher.

grats on the score! i just wanted to say i have loosely followed you and your sister since around 2000 when i caught some of your games in chess life. I had an autographed copy of your sister's chess life cover on my wall for like 4 years in college (the black and white one that came out shortly after her winning the women's title i think).

/end stalker rant.

I think a lot of people don't realize:how god awful durr is at chess.how great curtains actually is (even though he is rusty).how hard it is for someone at durr's level to even get to the 1200-1400 level (for most people).how much the clock plays a role in the odds making. ie, greg might be even money against a 1300 down a knight at G60, but a huge favorite at 5 minute blitz chess, and a dead lock at 1 minute chess over the internet.

i don't know if greg has experience at 1 minute time controls, but if he has the mousing skills, i bet he could take out some pretty experienced opponents down a rook. however, at tournament time controls, i would probably crush him every game i manage to avoid making a really out of character blunder. I am USCF 1726 (small sample size) fwiw, 1700 (lifetime high of 1992) on fics blitz over 6000+ games.

When I was like 7 I used to play chess and I was pretty much the best kid among the kids I played with. And this was in London, I'm not talking about dumb American chess playing kids. Anyway, my teacher said I would be awesome if I played more, but I didn't bother. If I had kept playing chess I would totally be able to kick your ass now.

i know your post was sarcastic, but apparently you are Indian, so yea you might be right.

that is a classic a chess myth though, everyone thinks they are pretty decent at chess or they had potential in the game because they beat up on all their buddies/family members who can hardly visualize how a knight moves. they don't realize that probably translates to 600-800 strength.

in reality, the game is a bitch. i am a pretty smart guy, i have put a lot of effort into my game, i have a bunch of chess books on my shelves, and i am an absolute nobody at the game. i am barely skilled enough to be considered respectable at the club level. i takes a lot of work and dedication to be at all decent at the game. the one exception might be if you are exposed to great players from a young age and have access to tutoring and coaching. i am completely self-taught (well i learned from books so i guess thats not *completely* self-taught) so i wouldn't know how much having a mentor would help. i never played someone who was 1400 strength in person until about 3 or 4 years after i bought my first chess book. one of the pitfalls of living in the rural west.

I dunno, some people simply have no talent and will have major trouble with even a lot of training. I mean there are lots of kids who study for years and never get above 1300-1500. The same is true of many adults. Of course most adults just assume it won't be the case with them. Also it takes a lot of practice playing, I think it takes more time. Like 2-3 hours of study per day over a longer period of time would be more beneficial.

Y, I agree.

I was wondering in the case of a player like Durr who obviously has a natural aptitude for mental games.If you were to take the bet again for rook odds and knew he had exactly one month to practise/study and use any tools at his disposal, would you?

I would guess a solid 1400-1500 player would win this provided they were rated such for stronger middle and endgame play, not blind memorization of openings...

I dunno, some people simply have no talent and will have major trouble with even a lot of training. I mean there are lots of kids who study for years and never get above 1300-1500. The same is true of many adults. Of course most adults just assume it won't be the case with them. Also it takes a lot of practice playing, I think it takes more time. Like 2-3 hours of study per day over a longer period of time would be more beneficial.

Y, I agree.

I was wondering in the case of a player like Durr who obviously has a natural aptitude for mental games.If you were to take the bet again for rook odds and knew he had exactly one month to practise/study and use any tools at his disposal, would you?

I would guess a solid 1400-1500 player would win this provided they were rated such for stronger middle and endgame play, not blind memorization of openings...

I guess I'd probably still be a favorite but of course the more he works the tougher itd be.

I'm not sure exactly where the rating cutoff for someone like curtains to be still be a favorite against with rook odds, but my guess is it's about 1200-1300. I'd think a 1400-1500 would be a favorite, but who can really be sure.

"you really have to be quite bad at chess to ever lose with a rook advantage against anyone. just play defensively and force a bunch of trades -- they don't all even have to be even -- and you'll be unstoppable in the endgame. this is why chess is a terrible game to handicap -- a single pawn advantage would be enough to make any competitive player a favorite against the top gm's in the world."

That's completely wrong on so many levels. Play defensively and just force trades?? If it was that easy, why couldn't you just do that in regular chess and guarantee at least a draw in any game? I consider myself a reasonably competitive player, and I'm quite certain I'd be an underdog with pawn odds against the top GMs (and I'd guess curtains likely would be too, but unsure)."

Anyways, very cool bet overall, wish I coulda gotten in on some of that action. If you're up for more of it, I'll take you on curtains in blitz (EVEN MATERIAL, just give me 3 to 2 time odds), and I'll take some of your newfound $8k off of you

"so he watched the first table where his opponent moved a white pawn, and decided not to respond because he had to do the same move at table 5 first. And person 1 didn't ask any questions why he was running of when it was his turn ??

Then at table 5, he is standing there and waiting for his opponent to respond with a black move, and right after he did, he just runs off (when it's his turn again)

Lol, I can't believe none of those smart grandmasters figured out what was going on ."

"so he watched the first table where his opponent moved a white pawn, and decided not to respond because he had to do the same move at table 5 first. And person 1 didn't ask any questions why he was running of when it was his turn ??

Then at table 5, he is standing there and waiting for his opponent to respond with a black move, and right after he did, he just runs off (when it's his turn again)

Lol, I can't believe none of those smart grandmasters figured out what was going on ."

Come on! They had to figure it out somewhere down the line.

do you have any ideas on how he figured out how many pieces would be left on the board when the game concluded? or was that bit of the trick actually setup?

Quote:I'm not sure exactly where the rating cutoff for someone like curtains to be still be a favorite against with rook odds, but my guess is it's about 1200-1300. I'd think a 1400-1500 would be a favorite, but who can really be sure.

"you really have to be quite bad at chess to ever lose with a rook advantage against anyone. just play defensively and force a bunch of trades -- they don't all even have to be even -- and you'll be unstoppable in the endgame. this is why chess is a terrible game to handicap -- a single pawn advantage would be enough to make any competitive player a favorite against the top gm's in the world."

That's completely wrong on so many levels. Play defensively and just force trades?? If it was that easy, why couldn't you just do that in regular chess and guarantee at least a draw in any game? I consider myself a reasonably competitive player, and I'm quite certain I'd be an underdog with pawn odds against the top GMs (and I'd guess curtains likely would be too, but unsure)."

Anyways, very cool bet overall, wish I coulda gotten in on some of that action. If you're up for more of it, I'll take you on curtains in blitz (EVEN MATERIAL, just give me 3 to 2 time odds), and I'll take some of your newfound $8k off of you

"so he watched the first table where his opponent moved a white pawn, and decided not to respond because he had to do the same move at table 5 first. And person 1 didn't ask any questions why he was running of when it was his turn ??

Then at table 5, he is standing there and waiting for his opponent to respond with a black move, and right after he did, he just runs off (when it's his turn again)

Lol, I can't believe none of those smart grandmasters figured out what was going on ."

Come on! They had to figure it out somewhere down the line.

do you have any ideas on how he figured out how many pieces would be left on the board when the game concluded? or was that bit of the trick actually setup?

The envelope thing is an old school magic trick seen plenty of times before. Instead of a sheet of paper in an envelope it could be that card you just signed from the deck etc.

What really puzzles me is how he beat the President of a chess club. That should mean that he actually is quite good at chess. I don't think he cheated on that one.

But the main problem with this trick is to actually trick eight masters of the game to believe they are not playing each other. I am sure they caught up with the scam and just acted out the rest.

Quote:I'm not sure exactly where the rating cutoff for someone like curtains to be still be a favorite against with rook odds, but my guess is it's about 1200-1300. I'd think a 1400-1500 would be a favorite, but who can really be sure.

"you really have to be quite bad at chess to ever lose with a rook advantage against anyone. just play defensively and force a bunch of trades -- they don't all even have to be even -- and you'll be unstoppable in the endgame. this is why chess is a terrible game to handicap -- a single pawn advantage would be enough to make any competitive player a favorite against the top gm's in the world."

That's completely wrong on so many levels. Play defensively and just force trades?? If it was that easy, why couldn't you just do that in regular chess and guarantee at least a draw in any game? I consider myself a reasonably competitive player, and I'm quite certain I'd be an underdog with pawn odds against the top GMs (and I'd guess curtains likely would be too, but unsure)."

Anyways, very cool bet overall, wish I coulda gotten in on some of that action. If you're up for more of it, I'll take you on curtains in blitz (EVEN MATERIAL, just give me 3 to 2 time odds), and I'll take some of your newfound $8k off of you

lololol

No [censored] way in hell Im an underdog against the top GM's with pawn odds, especially if I can choose the pawn. Pretty sure I would book action on myself against Kramnik for sure if he starts without his f7-pawn.

Well my assumption was it would be the a or h pawn handicapped, obv if it was f pawn or one of the two center pawns big difference. I would honestly take kramnik vs. you if it was the a or h pawn. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong. In any case regarding your previous post, your lolol, you laughing it off cause you're scared, or you will to take the challenge? Don't be afraid now, you don't want to have to be remembered for backing out of a match like your pal Donny

Quote:Well my assumption was it would be the a or h pawn handicapped, obv if it was f pawn or one of the two center pawns big difference. I would honestly take kramnik vs. you if it was the a or h pawn. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong. In any case regarding your previous post, your lolol, you laughing it off cause you're scared, or you will to take the challenge? Don't be afraid now, you don't want to have to be remembered for backing out of a match like your pal Donny

a or h pawn is different story but I still feel relatively good, but of course a bit less confident

[QUOTE]Aye, but the discussion isn't about a weekend player. It seems that everybody, save for durrr, knew and knows the weekend player had no chance. The comment I quoted stemmed from the talk about seriously competitive players beating top players in certain conditions.

Plus, I still gotta say comparing not having a rook to spotting somebody points in 1 on 1 shows such a fundamental misunderstanding of chess and probably basketball as well. [/QUOTE]

From Curtains:

[QUOTE]I don't think its a bad analogy at all. If a friend of Kobe Bryant offers me some prop bet in basketball for like 100k, I probably won't take it, regardless of how great it sounds for me. [/QUOTE]

Well, at least Curtains agrees with me.

My point is simply that non-professionals and layman alike tend toseriously underestimate the skills of professionals and experts.

Quote: No [censored] way in hell Im an underdog against the top GM's with pawn odds

I'd pick Morozevich without c2-pawn against you.

Ok I assumed that without a pawn meant the standard f-pawn handicap. Also realize that if you aren't talking about literally the top 10-20 players in the world, I would easily be a favorite IMO. I only have trouble discussing them because I never actually played someone who was currently ranked 1-10 in the world. I have played plenty from 50-100, and there is no way in hell they will back themselves in a match against me starting without a pawn. If they want to they know where to find me.

Let's put it this way. I wouldn't back myself in a match against someone 300 points lower rated than me, if I started without a pawn, although it might be close. That means it should be even less likely that someone 300 points higher rated than me, should feel confident playing me down a pawn. The reason for this is that small advantages have more value when the ratings of the players involved are higher. Note that no one in the world is ranked more than 350 points higher than me.

So logically I either underestimate my abilities to beat a 2150 FIDE player without a pawn (and I really think I'm an underdog), or there is something seriously wrong with these arguments.

Quote: No [censored] way in hell Im an underdog against the top GM's with pawn odds

I'd pick Morozevich without c2-pawn against you.

Let's put it this way. I wouldn't back myself in a match against someone 300 points lower rated than me, if I started without a pawn, although it might be close. That means it should be even less likely that someone 300 points higher rated than me, should feel confident playing me down a pawn. The reason for this is that small advantages have more value when the ratings of the players involved are higher. Note that no one in the world is ranked more than 350 points higher than me.

So logically I either underestimate my abilities to beat a 2150 FIDE player without a pawn (and I really think I'm an underdog), or there is something seriously wrong with these arguments.

I completely agree with the part that small advantages have more value when the ratings of the players involved are higher. But, I would pick you in a match (8 games, 30 min each, pawn odds, a-pawn in game 1, b-pawn in game 2 etc.) against somebody with 2150. Anyway, here we are on to something because the outcome of a match like this (or a match of you vs a 2700+) wouldn't be determined beforehand. Somewhere along these lines there should be a fair prop bet.

Quote: No [censored] way in hell Im an underdog against the top GM's with pawn odds

I'd pick Morozevich without c2-pawn against you.

Ok I assumed that without a pawn meant the standard f-pawn handicap. Also realize that if you aren't talking about literally the top 10-20 players in the world, I would easily be a favorite IMO. I only have trouble discussing them because I never actually played someone who was currently ranked 1-10 in the world. I have played plenty from 50-100, and there is no way in hell they will back themselves in a match against me starting without a pawn. If they want to they know where to find me.

Let's put it this way. I wouldn't back myself in a match against someone 300 points lower rated than me, if I started without a pawn, although it might be close. That means it should be even less likely that someone 300 points higher rated than me, should feel confident playing me down a pawn. The reason for this is that small advantages have more value when the ratings of the players involved are higher. Note that no one in the world is ranked more than 350 points higher than me.

So logically I either underestimate my abilities to beat a 2150 FIDE player without a pawn (and I really think I'm an underdog), or there is something seriously wrong with these arguments.

curtains after this thread you are now on the very very short list of people from 2p2 i think i would actually enjoy meeting. congrats.

Quote: The reason for this is that small advantages have more value when the ratings of the players involved are higher.

This is a sound point, but Iím not sure that the 300 points gaps are actually linear steps. I believe the k-factor for FIDE ratings is different for players below 2400. I donít recall exactly but letís agree for this example that below 2400 the k-factor is 24 and above it is drops to 18. The impact on rating gains would results in a player below 2400 who defeats someone of the same rating would gain 12 points, a player above 2400 who defeats a player of same rating would only gain 9. The outcome is that it is more difficult to go from 2400 to 2500, than it is to go from 2300 to 2400. However even with this being the case I believe your point of smaller advantages having more value as the ratings increase would offset some of the k-factor issues but Iím not sure entirely. ďÖ.So logically I either underestimate my abilities to beat..Ē I think you are just using solid judgment, itís not a bet that Iíd want a piece of from either side.I am (was) 2275 FIDE like two thousand year ago, anyone want to create a prop bet with Curtains and someone over the hill?

Quote:I don't have the money to be prop betting, but if i did I would bet on Durr if I coached him 2hrs a day for 30 days in the same match.

I'd take curtains for 50k again without hesitation. You grossly underestimate the time it takes to improve.

Quote:Let's put it this way. I wouldn't back myself in a match against someone 300 points lower rated than me, if I started without a pawn, although it might be close. That means it should be even less likely that someone 300 points higher rated than me, should feel confident playing me down a pawn. The reason for this is that small advantages have more value when the ratings of the players involved are higher. Note that no one in the world is ranked more than 350 points higher than me.

So logically I either underestimate my abilities to beat a 2150 FIDE player without a pawn (and I really think I'm an underdog), or there is something seriously wrong with these arguments.

You might be underestimating yourself. I don't have any competitive experience with f-pawn odds, so it's a bit of a guess, but I wouldn't back myself against the best local player (FM, USCF ranging from 2275-2410) and I'm USCF ~2050. I'd play at 2:1 (after some time to work off ring rust).

Quote:btw just a note, I am positive that a decent % of the people that say that they would win the bet easily and then mock durrr for losing, would not actually be a favorite in the bet. ... Sorry to be mean, I just find it silly how so many people are talking about how easily they would win the bet, without once giving their actual rating or any credentials of any sort. I'm mainly saying this to defend durrrr.

I have playing strength 2100-2200 fide and I'm fully confident I can give knight-odds vs anyone who hasn't played in tourneys before. Someone who beats all his friends all the time, just can't compete with someone who plays tournaments. I've seen it a thousand times: they think they're great, they know you're good, so they wanna challenge you. After 10 moves you start feeling ashamed yourself because he played so poor that it will be too obvious if you don't mate him in the next 10 moves. (Btw mostly they don't even know the exact rules, when isn't castling allowed and en passant for example.)

Take knight-odds, that's worth 3 pawns. I easily draw a pawn down, so winning 2 pawns is enough for not losing. How can't he lose 2 pawns? He might not drop pieces, but just 2 pawns, that's easy. Mostly he'll give a few pieces or get mated of course.

Rook-odds are very different cause you're unlikely to get 4 pawns, so he has to lose a piece and then some just to equalize.

Winning blindfold vs someone who never played tournaments is just as easy btw. It's even safer as you don't have to rely on his mistakes. Just play your A-game and he won't ever get an advantage.

Quote:Sponge, I bet if you gave it a chance you'd enjoy the game a LOT and would want to get better ASAP

I have played Chess a few times. It is fun, but I'd rather spend my time doing other things.

That being said I will play Curtains in a 72k HU match if he gives me triple queen odds and lets my 3df and 7q pawns move two spaces at a time every other move. Also, if we end in a draw, a two man sack race on consecutive Sundays will decide the winner.

1) I will wreck anyone here in bughouse no contest2) GMs tend to be pretty big pussies when the money is on the line.

In a big tourney 1st might be $15,000. On top board, either player who wins would clinch first place. Instead, they usually agree to a quick draw, where they get into a massive 6-7 way tie for first for like $4,000

Sometimes the stronger player will have WHITE (will prolly score upwards of 60%).I understand they need the money to live off and yada yada, just has bugged me for a while.

I played chess for a while, but it's one of those things that you really plateau quickly in unless you really put a lot of conentrated effort towards improving.

I read a few articles and downloaded some programs and watched replays of chess matches with narration, but in the end I realized the best thing was getting stoned and thinking so far ahead that you can't remember how the hell the sequence started. [censored] hilarious every time.

When I was like 7 I used to play chess and I was pretty much the best kid among the kids I played with. ...Anyway, my teacher said I would be awesome if I played more, but I didn't bother. If I had kept playing chess I would totally be able to kick your ass now.

Quote: No [censored] way in hell Im an underdog against the top GM's with pawn odds

I'd pick Morozevich without c2-pawn against you.

Ok I assumed that without a pawn meant the standard f-pawn handicap. Also realize that if you aren't talking about literally the top 10-20 players in the world, I would easily be a favorite IMO. I only have trouble discussing them because I never actually played someone who was currently ranked 1-10 in the world. I have played plenty from 50-100, and there is no way in hell they will back themselves in a match against me starting without a pawn. If they want to they know where to find me.

Let's put it this way. I wouldn't back myself in a match against someone 300 points lower rated than me, if I started without a pawn, although it might be close. That means it should be even less likely that someone 300 points higher rated than me, should feel confident playing me down a pawn. The reason for this is that small advantages have more value when the ratings of the players involved are higher. Note that no one in the world is ranked more than 350 points higher than me.

So logically I either underestimate my abilities to beat a 2150 FIDE player without a pawn (and I really think I'm an underdog), or there is something seriously wrong with these arguments.

curtains after this thread you are now on the very very short list of people from 2p2 i think i would actually enjoy meeting. congrats.

In a big tourney 1st might be $15,000. On top board, either player who wins would clinch first place. Instead, they usually agree to a quick draw, where they get into a massive 6-7 way tie for first for like $4,000

If they don't trust each other or if they are stupid. If they are friends they can make more money by playing for the win. The "secret" deal is you play for the win and sum the prizes together (1st place share and 2nd place share) they split the prize fund 60% to the winner of the game 40% to the loser. 1st prize $15K, 2nd $10K 4 people in the running. If they all draw it's $6,250. With "the deal" the worse case is you you have two folks tied for 1st & 2nd for $12,500 per share but the folks that have the "deal" split it $7,500 - $5,000.The best case is that the other guys draw and you have one clear winner of $15K and maybe 2nd gets bundled up so each share is worth $2K in that case the deal runs $10,200 to the winner and $6,800 to loser. It's sort of an "ethical" way to throw a game!? I know of some top players that have done this many many times....

I think a lot of people don't realize:how god awful durr is at chess.how great curtains actually is (even though he is rusty).how hard it is for someone at durr's level to even get to the 1200-1400 level (for most people).how much the clock plays a role in the odds making. ie, greg might be even money against a 1300 down a knight at G60, but a huge favorite at 5 minute blitz chess, and a dead lock at 1 minute chess over the internet.

i think maybe the first few dozen posters didn't realize these things but at this point they're all abundandtly clear - especially the durrrr sucking at chess part.

[QUOTE]Aye, but the discussion isn't about a weekend player. It seems that everybody, save for durrr, knew and knows the weekend player had no chance. The comment I quoted stemmed from the talk about seriously competitive players beating top players in certain conditions.

Plus, I still gotta say comparing not having a rook to spotting somebody points in 1 on 1 shows such a fundamental misunderstanding of chess and probably basketball as well.[/QUOTE]

From Curtains:

[QUOTE]I don't think its a bad analogy at all. If a friend of Kobe Bryant offers me some prop bet in basketball for like 100k, I probably won't take it, regardless of how great it sounds for me.[/QUOTE]

Well, at least Curtains agrees with me.

My point is simply that non-professionals and layman alike tend toseriously underestimate the skills of professionals and experts.

Well, if you're familiar with any of my posts you realize I don't talk out of my ass.

I don't know much about much but 2 things I know quite a bit about are basketball and chess. If the analogy used any other spot I would've let it alone, but i've played both at a fairly competitive level and have played against elite and even competition (more basketball than chess, plus i've coached kids in the former) and figured i'd add my .02.

But i'm no trying to argue that point and definitely was not trying to insult or flame you.

I was simply saying that a more apt analogy to rook odds would be a basketball player playing with one hand or with an eyeptach or something where the weaker player might solve the problem and find a niche to exploit.

Spotting a player 15 points up to 24 is the same as spotting a player 15 games up to 24 in a chess match. The stronger player will be unstoppable but in a rook odds scenario or simliar the stronger player will be somewhat out of his element and thus somewhat susceptible to having this exploited.

Yes any expert who couldn't crush a GM with rook odds, really must reevaluate their strength. To all who think curtains would still be a favorite vs. a 2150 with pawn odds: my challenge still stands, I don't even want pawn odds, I'll take him on at 3 to 2 time odds, just name your price and time

Quote:GMs tend to be pretty big pussies when the money is on the line.

In a big tourney 1st might be $15,000. On top board, either player who wins would clinch first place. Instead, they usually agree to a quick draw, where they get into a massive 6-7 way tie for first for like $4,000

Sometimes the stronger player will have WHITE (will prolly score upwards of 60%).I understand they need the money to live off and yada yada, just has bugged me for a while.

Most either have no clue whatsoever on how to determine +EV plays or they lack the guts.

I think a USA championship saw this recently. Like 10 people in first place, 4 boards make a quick draw (thus 8 players), the 5th board becomes a crazy game. Clearly +EV (for these 2 guys) in the short run, but especially in the long-run! Think of all the invitations you'll get when you win. It always amazes me how short-sighted some GMs can be.

here is a good chess prop that is very winnable. better prop than raptor's at least imo because it doesn't rely on someone being crazy.

bet that you can draw (or even win against certain computers) a computer rated in the 2200-2600 range, probably don't want to go to high though since it will make it obvious something is up. make the time control 3 minutes (possible 2 or even 1 if you get good at it, no inc is critical though) and make sure the bet allows you 4 or so tries as white (also critical). if you are rated 1600-1700 like me you will NEVER beat a 2400+ computer at 3 minute chess through typical means. however, certain computers have little exploits that allow you to lock up the board very easily and just shuffle pieces for a draw, and very often win on time depending on how the computer's move selection algorithm works.

here is a demonstration i played today against a 2200ish computer. i am out of practice, it takes some getting used to, and every computer is different. so you definitely have to train with the particular software/hardware setup in advance. cherry picking the computer is KEY and its the only hitch that may turn off the mark.

i didn't realize the 50 move rule was coming up so early or i would have put h4 in there... wouldn't have mattered though, this computer played fast it seemed and still had lots of time on the clock. usually when i get a win, the game goes 100-250 moves, this game locked up way too early to allow it to go much deeper.

hist 'riverplate' (not me, but its who i first saw employ this setup successfully) on fics for some better examples.

i have never actually bet on this because i don't know many people that are in to chess, and the few that i do don't have any money. so i might as well give it away.

OMFG bughouse is basically a mind-gasm to play .. so incredibly fun. WHAT SITE DO U PLAY IT AT?

FICS is hands down the best site for bughouse. If you want to play bughouse there, you may want to download the Thief interface.

Damn, I should start playing bug again, I think my last games are from somewhere around 2004 since my RD is almost 250 now. I haven't ever been very good at it though, my personal best is 1819 from December '03.

lalu, are you my brother's friend from college? For some reason I think so. Maybe I knew this already. If so, hi, for him, I guess? Maybe you guys weren't good friends or something, how would I know? I'm pretty sure you and I have played bughouse or something retarded like that online at some point. (Wash U?)

Quote:Yes any expert who couldn't crush a GM with rook odds, really must reevaluate their strength. To all who think curtains would still be a favorite vs. a 2150 with pawn odds: my challenge still stands, I don't even want pawn odds, I'll take him on at 3 to 2 time odds, just name your price and time

Quote:Yes any expert who couldn't crush a GM with rook odds, really must reevaluate their strength. To all who think curtains would still be a favorite vs. a 2150 with pawn odds: my challenge still stands, I don't even want pawn odds, I'll take him on at 3 to 2 time odds, just name your price and time

I've beaten him in blitz before without a pawn

I dunno about 3 to 2 time odds though, I think he's a favorite there.

I also think I'm maybe a bit closer to 2150 than you are though.

Lalu is about 2400-2500 strength in blitz, I'd have no chance in the longrun at 3-2 time odds.

As far as pawn odds go, no one has raised how an absent pawn can be an advantage to some extent. I could see missing f7 being pretty bad, because it doesn't open a piece and exposes the king. But wouldn't opening up a rook file be pretty sweet--if you can play a wide open attacking game? What about the others? Taking the d pawn off = instant gambit? (And yes, sure, I don't mean a net advantage, but against a weaker player, maybe even a player not that much weaker, it's not an all-around negative, right?)